The Obama Years- A GOP love story

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

First off Mitts not dodging taxes he is paying what he owes and he did not make the tax laws. You think that Obama and other Dems don't also take the deductions or pay the tax rate they owe and nothing more? I'm sure you also know that the reason people know how much Obama donated to charity last year was because it was on his taxes as a write off (your terms he was dodging paying taxes on that money). You also say people making 250k aren't taking tax deductions and I'd say your crazy. You don't take tax dedections? They are not loopholes they are tax code and anyone using them is not dodging taxes. Even the poor take tax deductions on money they didn't even pay to get a tax credit and refund even if they didn't pay taxes.

Hiding money in offshore accounts and using loopholes is dodging taxes. I didn't say they were doing anything illegal, I simply said they were dodging taxes.....and they are.

The loopholes I'm referring to are the ones not offered or afforded to the peasants.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

This is the problem. You call the rich scumbags because they work hard and pay the taxes they legally owe. So what do you call the poor who don't pay any taxes and actually receive a refund after paying nothing into the system?

I guess you also must know those Corp. profits are passed down to the stock holder and they have to pay taxes on the profits.

Why do you think that the ultra rich work hard? The majority of the Walton family didn't work hard, yet there they are ranking in the top 10 of richest people in the world. They inherited money. That dumb cunt Gina Rineheart (aussie) inherited her money. You know who does work hard? The employees that build their businesses up that make them ultra rich. I'm sick and tired of hearing how "hard" these billionaires work. It's a fallacy. Sure some may have worked their asses off to the top, but by in large it simply isn't true. They either lucked out, or inherited money.

Not all corps do dividends. The profits are need to be taxed. End of story. Are you ****ing really sitting up here saying that a company should get 14 billion in profits and not pay taxes? That's exactly what you are arguing with the point you are making when you retort with a "they give out dividends, which those people pay taxes on". Also, who cares if the dividends are taxed. If I get income, it's taxed. If I share my income with you as a gift, that money is now income for you and it's taxed. Welcome to the world of the same income being taxed multiple times. Should work the same for corporations. After all, ARE THEY NOT PEOPLE? The SCOTUS thinks so.


Wait, you want some guy who's living below the poverty level to pay taxes? Are you shitting me? I think you need to find out what living below the poverty level means and get back with me.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Why do you think that the ultra rich work hard? The majority of the Walton family didn't work hard, yet there they are ranking in the top 10 of richest people in the world. They inherited money. That dumb cunt Gina Rineheart (aussie) inherited her money. You know who does work hard? The employees that build their businesses up that make them ultra rich. I'm sick and tired of hearing how "hard" these billionaires work. It's a fallacy. Sure some may have worked their asses off to the top, but by in large it simply isn't true. They either lucked out, or inherited money.

Not all corps do dividends. The profits are need to be taxed. End of story. Are you ****ing really sitting up here saying that a company should get 14 billion in profits and not pay taxes? That's exactly what you are arguing and the point you are making when you retort with a "they give out dividends, which those people pay taxes on". That's probably one of the stupidest things I've seen you say to date. Also, who cares if the dividends are taxed. If I get income, it's taxed. If I share my income with you as a gift, that money is now income for you and it's taxed. Welcome to the world of the same income being taxed multiple times. Should work the same for corporations. After all, ARE THEY NOT PEOPLE? The SCOTUS thinks so.


Wait, you want some guy who's living below the poverty level to pay taxes? Are you shitting me? I think you need to find out what living below the poverty level means and get back with me.

So now the rich do nothing but the none working poor are the hard workers. I guess we should wait around for them to turn the economy around. LMAO

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So now the rich do nothing but the none working poor are the hard workers. I guess we should wait around for them to turn the economy around. LMAO

I didn't say they didn't do anything. I said I think there is this huge misconception that the ultra rich busted their asses off for their wealth. You think that Hostess CEO busted his ass to earn that 1.9 million dollar bonus he got from his company being liquidated? All the while stealing the employees pensions and not giving it back to them?


You are trying to twist what I say into it being that way in all cases. It's not. I've said as much but you choose to ignore what I'm saying. It's getting tiring having to keep explaining this to you.


It's the middle class and poor people that drive this economy, not the rich. It's the middle class and poor who buy most of the goods that cause these billionaires to get richer. (and stockholders) So yes, we do need to give back to those groups so they can in fact turn the economy around. Shows you don't grasp the fact that having few people own all the wealth isn't going to do shit for the economy. Salaries need to go up, even if that means telling some jackwagon billionaire that he can't have a second yacht.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I didn't say they didn't do anything. I said I think there is this huge misconception that the ultra rich busted their asses off for their wealth. You think that Hostess CEO busted his ass to earn that 1.9 million dollar bonus he got from his company being liquidated? All the while stealing the employees pensions and not giving it back to them?


You are trying to twist what I say into it being that way in all cases. It's not. I've said as much but you choose to ignore what I'm saying. It's getting tiring having to keep explaining this to you.


It's the middle class and poor people that drive this economy, not the rich. It's the middle class and poor who buy most of the goods that cause these billionaires to get richer. (and stockholders) So yes, we do need to give back to those groups so they can in fact turn the economy around. Shows you don't grasp the fact that having few people own all the wealth isn't going to do shit for the economy. Salaries need to go up, even if that means telling some jackwagon billionaire that he can't have a second yacht.

This conversation started with people making $250000 up and you have now changed it to the ultra rich billionaire to make your points. Sorry but the poor don't drive the economy. If they did we would have poor nations.LOL

Actually the CEO for Hostess Probably worked very hard last year if he earned that bonus is hard to say. His pay is voted on by the stock holders and I'll agree I think most are over paid.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

This conversation started with people making $250000 up and you have now changed it to the ultra rich billionaire to make your points. Sorry but the poor don't drive the economy. If they did we would have poor nations.LOL

Actually the CEO for Hostess Probably worked very hard last year if he earned that bonus is hard to say. His pay is voted on by the stock holders and I'll agree I think most are over paid.

So are you saying the very few wealthy people consume more products and goods than middle class/poor people?

So what you are saying is that 1% of the US population consumes/purchases more goods and products than 99% of the people?



http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...rt_embargo.pdf

Consumer spending makes up roughly 70 percent of the American economy, as measured by Gross Domestic Product.

edit: I went on record saying that I though most people making that 250K were paying their taxes and not using a bunch of tax havens and loopholes to avoid taxes. I even mentioned moving that tax hike up to people who's income hit 1 million.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

So are you saying the very few wealthy people consume more products and goods than middle class/poor people?

So what you are saying is that 1% of the US population consumes/purchases more goods and products than 99% of the people?



http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...rt_embargo.pdf






edit: I went on record saying that I though most people making that 250K were paying their taxes and not using a bunch of tax havens and loopholes to avoid taxes. I even mentioned moving that tax hike up to people who's income hit 1 million.

You have actually said that before and I could agree that people making over a million a year could pay more. That's not what the President is asking and its your thread saying the right is wrong on this issue when you agree with them in part.

Why didn't you start a thread saying Obama was crazy and only should raise taxes on people making 1 mil or more?

[budw38]

If anyone wants the wealthiest to just pay their fair share , you would need to tax their total wealth / assets . Most of the wealthy make under 1 million in salary .... business , real estate , inh. an estate ,ect . Under the Presidents plan, guys like Warren Buffett would not see an increase in taxes , but many small bus. owners , police ( OT ) and a number of dual income families would. taxing people on their net worth would probably work , as would a simple tax code with limited loopholes .

[NC_Skins]

Obama Orders Pay Raise For Congress, Federal Workers, Joe Biden



So pitiful you have to laugh at this stage. It would be nice if America got together and marched onto DC to cast out all these bums. Things like this is why I didn't vote for him.


I'm going to have to ask my dad to borrow his t-shirt he got for Christmas.

[NC_Skins]

Seriously, **** Obama. Hope he stumps his toe and hurts him the next 4 years. Fiscal cliff coming and this asshole is giving Congress and the feds a raise. A congress that has a 9% approval rating.

[RedskinRat]

King: I Have a Dream. Obama: I Have a Drone

A simple twist of fate has set President Obama’s second Inaugural Address for January 21, the same day as the Martin Luther King Jr. national holiday.

Obama made no mention of King during the Inauguration four years ago — but since then, in word and deed, the president has done much to distinguish himself from the man who said “I have a dream.”

After his speech at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in August 1963, King went on to take great risks as a passionate advocate for peace.

After his Inaugural speech in January 2009, Obama has pursued policies that epitomize King’s grim warning in 1967: “When scientific power outruns moral power, we end up with guided missiles and misguided men.”

But Obama has not ignored King’s anti-war legacy. On the contrary, the president has gone out of his way to distort and belittle it.

In his eleventh month as president — while escalating the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, a process that tripled the American troop levels there — Obama traveled to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. In his speech, he cast aspersions on the peace advocacy of another Nobel Peace laureate: Martin Luther King Jr.

The president struck a respectful tone as he whetted the rhetorical knife before twisting. “I know there’s nothing weak — nothing passive — nothing naive — in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King,” he said, just before swiftly implying that those two advocates of nonviolent direct action were, in fact, passive and naive. “I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people,” Obama added.

Moments later, he was straining to justify American warfare: past, present, future. “To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason,” Obama said. “I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.”

Then came the jingo pitch: “Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.”

Crowing about the moral virtues of making war while accepting a peace prize might seem a bit odd, but Obama’s rhetoric was in sync with a key dictum from Orwell: “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”

Laboring to denigrate King’s anti-war past while boasting about Uncle Sam’s past (albeit acknowledging “mistakes,” a classic retrospective euphemism for carnage from the vantage point of perpetrators), Obama marshaled his oratory to foreshadow and justify the killing yet to come under his authority.

Two weeks before the start of Obama’s second term, the British daily The Guardian noted that “U.S. use of drones has soared during Obama’s time in office, with the White House authorizing attacks in at least four countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. It is estimated that the CIA and the U.S. military have undertaken more than 300 drone strikes and killed about 2,500 people.”

The newspaper reported that a former member of Obama’s “counter-terrorism group” during the 2008 campaign, Michael Boyle, says the White House is now understating the number of civilian deaths due to the drone strikes, with loosened standards for when and where to attack: “The consequences can be seen in the targeting of mosques or funeral processions that kill non-combatants and tear at the social fabric of the regions where they occur. No one really knows the number of deaths caused by drones in these distant, sometimes ungoverned, lands.”

Although Obama criticized the Bush-era “war on terror” several years ago, Boyle points out, President Obama “has been just as ruthless and indifferent to the rule of law as his predecessor.”

Boyle’s assessment — consistent with the conclusions of many other policy analysts — found the Obama administration’s use of drones is “encouraging a new arms race that will empower current and future rivals and lay the foundations for an international system that is increasingly violent.”

In recent weeks, more than 50,000 Americans have signed a petition to Ban Weaponized Drones from the World. The petition says that “weaponized drones are no more acceptable than land mines, cluster bombs or chemical weapons.” It calls for President Obama “to abandon the use of weaponized drones, and to abandon his ‘kill list’ program regardless of the technology employed.”

Count on lofty rhetoric from the Inaugural podium. The spirit of Dr. King will be elsewhere.

[NC_Skins]

Sen. Paul to Sec. Clinton: I would have relieved you of your post - The Washington Post


Senator Paul (the other one) drills Clinton pretty good about Benghazi. I agree with him totally. I like how she played coy about the gun shipping question.

[NC_Skins]

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Sen. Paul to Sec. Clinton: I would have relieved you of your post - The Washington Post


Senator Paul (the other one) drills Clinton pretty good about Benghazi. I agree with him totally. I like how she played coy about the gun shipping question.

BS, Hilary did one hell of a job!

"Hillary Kicked Republican Buttocks Today" -...

[NC_Skins]

Roxanne Rubin, Nevada Republican, Accepts Plea Deal After Committing Voter Fraud

Her voting rights should be stripped from her as well.